Hawking only feels that way because he has what you would call a"good model". un like this some people..hum..some people are "why?" people and some people are "why not!" people... I'm bettin this guy's a "why?" guy.
I was prepared to watch this until the end until his primary point, which was not really a point at all, rather an opinion from Martin J. Rees (winner of the Templeton Prize in 2011, take that as you will....). WLC until you can begin a lecture attempting to refute claims by a highly respected physicist with ACTUAL logic and not carefully selected here say, how can you expected to be taken seriously?
@kingfappington And if you had watched for just an extra two minutes, you would have seen that Craig decided to ACTUALLY look deeply at Hawkings claims. Go ahead, watch the video, you won't be disappointed.
@AgApE010 Cosmological argument causality can not be discussed prior to the universe existing. Moral argument circular reasoning. fine tuning begs the question. Ontological argument .incoherent concept of maximal greatness.Theres 4 out of 5 . the fifth is the bible and this requires no refutuation
How pitiful that you think you've actually accomplished something with this comment.
We can certainly discuss causality in Cosmological arguments. Unless you want to go against the principle that every effect has a cause (which is something consistently verified empirically) and argue that the universe did not require a cause, but then you'll have to provide a reasonable case for that.
@AgApE010 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
Oh look, an uncited quotation attempting to argue against a cosmological argument attributed to a man who has written more than any other philosopher in favor of the cosmological argument. LOL! Come on guy. Are you trolling or just plain silly?
@AgApE010 WLC "The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.
@AgApE010 WLC continued ". i don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me"
@AgApE010 WLC continued " The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!
What do you mean by "time"? Is it something objective? If time is simply the perception of the succession of events, then there is argument to be against causality there.
@AgApE010 The one or two dimensions we perceive as time didn't exist prior to the big bang. If you wish you can google the big bang and read up on the many theories of time . some say it's one dimensional so say multidimensional. but whatever it is it's existence coincided with the beginning of the universe.
Ha, ha...Really? Does the physics community rejects Roger Penrose? Yeah, right.
Oh, and i should remind you that the majority of the physicists and astronomers (Vileknin, Guth, Hawking, Krauss, Weinberg, Sagan, De Grasse and so) reject your pseudo science and the god "hypotesis".
And by the way... The fact that there was a Big Bang "proves" the existence of a god as much as a lightning proves the existence of Zeus.
Even if the theory you like (which we dont know if its true) and you could eliminate eternal vacuum. You still cant eliminate previous conditions or state for such to emerge, which you dont have a clue what could have been.. And im sorry, but i cant accept that if we cant explain something, then god did it. Besides, there are plenty of other interesting theories that we need to consider and could be right as well (Penrose, Carroll, and so)
@AgeOfReasonXXI - Dude, relax. First of all, if you don't like Craig (or believe in God), does that mean you have to say "hack" all the time and be openly rude to other people? No. You talk about WLC and being a "fundy," not going to change in his ways, but do you think you'd ever change YOUR ways? It doesn't seem so. And seriously, I'd consider you intelligent, but I'd really like to see you challenge WLC personally (I know, unlikely). I don't think you could hold up, plain and simple.
Philosophy is dead and unnecessary at this stage of our understanding. We no longer need to make up sophisticated bullshit to fill in the gaps that we can’t yet explain when we are now starting to develop the means to explain them. A lot of the most groundbreaking, serious and well known scientists don’t rate philosophy for very good reasons.
"A lot of the most groundbreaking, serious and well known scientists don’t rate philosophy for very good reasons."
That itself is a logical fallacy called Argument from Authority.
If you'd studied philosophy even a little bit, perhaps you'd have known that.
It is ignorant and idiotic to claim "philosophy is dead". Philosophy is how we use rationality itself to discover truth. Science cannot operate without philosophical presuppositions.
"Argument from Authority" - Yet more philosophical bullshit, Its as stupid as the "genetic fallacy".
"Philosophy is how we use rationalityitself to discover truth. Science cannot operate without philosophical presuppositions". - Those same groundbreaking serious scientists dont follow or study any philosophical principals either and yet they remain the leaders of our species.
Your obviously another "genius" desperate to keep philosophy alive for the sake of his religion.
""Argument from Authority" - Yet more philosophical bullshit,"
Oh, really? In that case, God exists because the religious authorities say so. :-D
" Its as stupid as the "genetic fallacy"."
You only believe the genetic fallacy is stupid because you've grown up with a bad family background and have hung around too many atheists, therefore you're wrong. ;-P
"Oh, really? In that case, God exists because the religious authorities say so"
-The evidence or lack of it, begs to differ, the "argument from authority is not necessary.
The way you tried defending the Genetic fallacy was so pathetically childish im not going to even respond to it.
"Leading isn't the same as truth"
-They are leaders because they have discovered some of the most profound ACTUAL TRUTHS the universe has to offer, far more than any philosopher has dreamed up.
"Those same groundbreaking serious scientists dont follow or study any philosophical principals"
Of course they do. The philosophy of scientific empiricism assumes that all things have a material explanation to it and repeated observation & experimentation will lead us closer to the truth. This is called the scientific method & scientists use and study this philosophy in order to gain more knowledge about the material universe. Thanks for showing us u know nothing.
The scientific method is the creation of science itself, through rigorous trial and error and taking the next logical steps in experimentation. We don’t call scientists “Natural Philosophers” anymore because it’s now a different discipline devoid of philosophy which doesn’t deal with the relatively strong certainties science does.
Craig isn't being consistent with fine tuning, first he says the universe had to be fine tuned a specific way to allow for life meaning the universe can only come about a specific way limiting god in his creating powers and bounding him to laws. Then he proceeds to say god can do anything and make anything possible but this is not true. So this fine tuning argument is a good argument against god's existence.
Our will. What we want is partially set by genes but can be altered through appelation and by experience. Our will is natural and not made up as in pretended. The same would go for any beings will. It's not made up unless we use cognition to monkey someone else by idolisation, through appelation. Capricious would be someone who mostly acts on whim and don't really use free will/cognition abillety. Our thoughts go on impulsively. It just is a developed operation in this part of the universe.
That would be our free will controlling our natural will. But it would not be made up in every sense of the meaning of the word made up. It would not be an illusion either. Only perhaps our understanding of our will. Our abstracted model of it can be incorrect so to say. But I don't see how any beings will can be objective or subjectively supperior to all else by it self or how the being could reach that conclusion.
if only Craig would follow his own reasoning about scientists making pronouncements outside of their field of specialization ans stop making pronouncements outside his own filed and champion himself as some sort of an expert on Big Bang Cosmology! this fucking hypocrite is so unprincipled, he makes physically sick
@AgeOfReasonXXI Thank you for your rational comment and the clarity you bring to the discourse, AgeOfReason. What a reasonable person you are. Such pure, unadulterated Reason, it's amazing!
@Jesrael1986M you don't reason with a hack like Craig, you expose him. Craig openly admitted that even if ALL evidence were to turn against his faith he'd still be a Christian, bc of the Holy Spirit in his heart! So he holds the position of any fundy, i.e. there's nothing you can say to me that would change my mind.
if there's anything worse than a fundy, that's one with intellectual pretenses. so yes, Craig IS a fucking disgrace
@godhasgiventruly you don't know what an ad hominem is , do you? where in my comments do I claim that becasue Craig is a shameless fundy and a hack, his arguments fail?
rather, he loses the right to be taken seriously by any honest scholar and only has the right to be exposed.
if you read the remarks of many those who had debated him, such as L. Krauss, R. Price, B. Ehrman, S. Harris, C. Washington, etc, you'll see they more or less agree on what Craig is
"here in my comments do I claim that becasue Craig is a shameless fundy and a hack, his arguments fail?"
"rather, he loses the right to be taken seriously by any honest scholar and only has the right to be exposed."
So you're basically saying that because he's a fundie and a hack, his arguments shouldn't be taken seriously, which what you're really trying to say is that his arguments are automatically debunked. Nice ad hominem. Congrats for the self pwnage
@AgeOfReasonXXI You're a pathetic troll! You are so obsessed with your own disbelief that you actually take time out of your day to troll videos on a subject that you dont even believe in . WLC has never said he is an expert in big bang cosmology. If you would actually listen to the lecture you will see that he takes his science from the most MODERN and up to date science available. Do you know something that usurps the BVG theorem? Your vile comments make me physically sick!
@AegeanKing go take your meds, faith-head. Craig is the worst kind of a hack, one who has no clue what intellectual honesty is, and is so fanatical in his Iron Age faith, that admits nothing could change his mind even though he champions himself as a intellectual! now THAT can make someone physically sick, and that's why I commented
modern cosmology points to God? Really?? How is it then almost all cosmologists are atheists? apparently you should get a life, you deluded fuck-head
@AegeanKing and yes, a trolling, moronic faith-head like you calling someone else pathetic and a troll is, well.. pathetic
and did I ever dispute that the deluded rabbi you call a "savior" existed?
or is it the WLCs type of "logic": he was executed, his tomb was found empty, his disciples claimed they've had visions of him (all of which I grant) -> therefore he's Lord and can save us (from himself) if we repent!
@AegeanKing "Your vile comments make me physically sick!"
I'm pretty sure that can't compare to the feeling of nausea I get upon seeing a man who's made a career out of arguing for god and maintains his faith is "reasonable", and even urges his followers to question the honesty of those who refuse to buy into his arguments by asking "well if I refute your objections would you become a Christian", while at the same time (the very same chapter of his book) he makes it perfectly clear
@AegeanKing ..that if the same question is posed to him and his arguments are defeated, Craig's answer would be "NO"(!) and he'd dismiss your arguments bc the Holy Spirit trumps ALL arguments and evidence and assures him he's right!
Putting aside the fact that such a stance reveals Craig's true fundamentalist colors (I mean, this guy apparently admitted that even if he's taken back with a time machine to Jesus' tomb and sees no resurrection occurs, he'd assume..
@AegeanKing ..some sort of trick was played on him, and remain a Christian!) and amounts to nothing less than an intellectual suicide, the sheer hypocrisy and shameless projection of his own insincerity onto his opponents really borders on pathology
so Price is right: "Craig's apologetics has adopted insincerity as a structural principle". with the possible exception of his GENOCIDE apologetics, that is
Dawkins' words about that "deplorable apologist for genocide" come to mind here
the interesting thing is I think Hawking discovered that the universe was created from nothing aka no material cause, that christians agree on... but seeing that he goes further to make nothing the cause of the universe, which christians disagree because we believe in a efficient cause aka God I think christians could use his work but have a different conclusion.
this is a great video it is a shame that atheists the likes of stephen and dawkins when given chance to respond to their weak agrument they hide their head in the sand and wish nobody has noticed their deshonest intelectual reasons why they dont want to debate.
@Birdieupon Holy shit! If ever a video should be made on the lack of thinking on part of YT atheists(I presume hes got an account for it) this bit should be in it ;)
Why don't they hire a speaker that actually knows what he's talking about.
guicho0o 3 days ago
That was superb! The last few minutes were so true regarding the western world.
emmthreejonny 1 week ago
Hawking only feels that way because he has what you would call a"good model". un like this some people..hum..some people are "why?" people and some people are "why not!" people... I'm bettin this guy's a "why?" guy.
karlwashere123 3 weeks ago
I was prepared to watch this until the end until his primary point, which was not really a point at all, rather an opinion from Martin J. Rees (winner of the Templeton Prize in 2011, take that as you will....). WLC until you can begin a lecture attempting to refute claims by a highly respected physicist with ACTUAL logic and not carefully selected here say, how can you expected to be taken seriously?
kingfappington 4 weeks ago
@kingfappington And if you had watched for just an extra two minutes, you would have seen that Craig decided to ACTUALLY look deeply at Hawkings claims. Go ahead, watch the video, you won't be disappointed.
AMWOODco 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig
Comment removed
empreme 2 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig
@SteveDutchy
It's easy to hate Craig. The hard part is actually addressing what he's saying. Too much brain work for you?
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 Actually Craig's arguments are easily refuted
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@AgApE010 Cosmological argument causality can not be discussed prior to the universe existing. Moral argument circular reasoning. fine tuning begs the question. Ontological argument .incoherent concept of maximal greatness.Theres 4 out of 5 . the fifth is the bible and this requires no refutuation
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
How pitiful that you think you've actually accomplished something with this comment.
We can certainly discuss causality in Cosmological arguments. Unless you want to go against the principle that every effect has a cause (which is something consistently verified empirically) and argue that the universe did not require a cause, but then you'll have to provide a reasonable case for that.
AgApE010 1 month ago
@AgApE010 Let Craig's own words do my talking for me
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@AgApE010 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Oh look, an uncited quotation attempting to argue against a cosmological argument attributed to a man who has written more than any other philosopher in favor of the cosmological argument. LOL! Come on guy. Are you trolling or just plain silly?
AgApE010 1 month ago
@AgApE010 Read it for yourself . Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996 . Google it it's the first result read Dr Craig's Rebuttal.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
I'll read it. Thanks for citing your quote properly.
AgApE010 1 month ago
@AgApE010 you have too much faith in dr Craig . Here's an interesting quote from him which says a lot about his character.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"you have too much faith in dr Craig"
Actually, I disagree with the man concerning many things.
AgApE010 1 month ago
@AgApE010 WLC "The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@AgApE010 WLC continued ". i don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me"
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010 WLC continued " The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@AgApE010 Causality requires time. Time did not exist prior to the big bang . No Time No Causality. Still pitiful?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
What do you mean by "time"? Is it something objective? If time is simply the perception of the succession of events, then there is argument to be against causality there.
AgApE010 1 month ago
@AgApE010 Time didn't exist prior to the big bang
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
"Time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang"
Again, what do you mean by time?
AgApE010 1 month ago
@AgApE010 The one or two dimensions we perceive as time didn't exist prior to the big bang. If you wish you can google the big bang and read up on the many theories of time . some say it's one dimensional so say multidimensional. but whatever it is it's existence coincided with the beginning of the universe.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@AgApE010 As for Craig's other arguments do you have any issues with what I said about them/
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDyingApologist
Ha, ha...Really? Does the physics community rejects Roger Penrose? Yeah, right.
Oh, and i should remind you that the majority of the physicists and astronomers (Vileknin, Guth, Hawking, Krauss, Weinberg, Sagan, De Grasse and so) reject your pseudo science and the god "hypotesis".
And by the way... The fact that there was a Big Bang "proves" the existence of a god as much as a lightning proves the existence of Zeus.
JawaRedSteel 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist
Even if the theory you like (which we dont know if its true) and you could eliminate eternal vacuum. You still cant eliminate previous conditions or state for such to emerge, which you dont have a clue what could have been.. And im sorry, but i cant accept that if we cant explain something, then god did it. Besides, there are plenty of other interesting theories that we need to consider and could be right as well (Penrose, Carroll, and so)
JawaRedSteel 2 months ago
Well, its very easy then...The Vacuum is the uncaused first cause of the universe. Not god.
JawaRedSteel 2 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI - Dude, relax. First of all, if you don't like Craig (or believe in God), does that mean you have to say "hack" all the time and be openly rude to other people? No. You talk about WLC and being a "fundy," not going to change in his ways, but do you think you'd ever change YOUR ways? It doesn't seem so. And seriously, I'd consider you intelligent, but I'd really like to see you challenge WLC personally (I know, unlikely). I don't think you could hold up, plain and simple.
TheExFatman 2 months ago
Wow the 1st question is like : Why the triangle has three faces ?
babkrani 2 months ago
Amen! Praise God for William Lane Craig! Keep going brother in Christ!!!
Freddymack1000 2 months ago
I love seeing that village atheist owned at 0:57:40
Alexandrebissonne100 2 months ago
Philosophy is dead and unnecessary at this stage of our understanding. We no longer need to make up sophisticated bullshit to fill in the gaps that we can’t yet explain when we are now starting to develop the means to explain them. A lot of the most groundbreaking, serious and well known scientists don’t rate philosophy for very good reasons.
JaydeeOldBoy 3 months ago
@JaydeeOldBoy
"A lot of the most groundbreaking, serious and well known scientists don’t rate philosophy for very good reasons."
That itself is a logical fallacy called Argument from Authority.
If you'd studied philosophy even a little bit, perhaps you'd have known that.
It is ignorant and idiotic to claim "philosophy is dead". Philosophy is how we use rationality itself to discover truth. Science cannot operate without philosophical presuppositions.
Congratulations on self pwnage.
Birdieupon 3 months ago
@Birdieupon
"Argument from Authority" - Yet more philosophical bullshit, Its as stupid as the "genetic fallacy".
"Philosophy is how we use rationalityitself to discover truth. Science cannot operate without philosophical presuppositions". - Those same groundbreaking serious scientists dont follow or study any philosophical principals either and yet they remain the leaders of our species.
Your obviously another "genius" desperate to keep philosophy alive for the sake of his religion.
JaydeeOldBoy 3 months ago
@JaydeeOldBoy
""Argument from Authority" - Yet more philosophical bullshit,"
Oh, really? In that case, God exists because the religious authorities say so. :-D
" Its as stupid as the "genetic fallacy"."
You only believe the genetic fallacy is stupid because you've grown up with a bad family background and have hung around too many atheists, therefore you're wrong. ;-P
" they remain the leaders of our species."
Leading isn't the same as truth.
You've made ZERO arguments here. No wonder!
Birdieupon 3 months ago
@Birdieupon
"Oh, really? In that case, God exists because the religious authorities say so"
-The evidence or lack of it, begs to differ, the "argument from authority is not necessary.
The way you tried defending the Genetic fallacy was so pathetically childish im not going to even respond to it.
"Leading isn't the same as truth"
-They are leaders because they have discovered some of the most profound ACTUAL TRUTHS the universe has to offer, far more than any philosopher has dreamed up.
JaydeeOldBoy 3 months ago
@JaydeeOldBoy
"-The evidence or lack of it, begs to differ, the "argument from authority is not necessary."
Sorry, you said the AFA fallacy was "bullshit", so by your rules I'm allowed to use it and say God exists!
"The way you tried defending the Genetic fallacy was so pathetically childish im not going to even respond to it."
I'm calling your bluff: you're incapable of responding to it.
And when you talk about "ACTUAL TRUTHS" you're talking philosophy. In fact, your arguing now uses it!
Birdieupon 3 months ago
@JaydeeOldBoy
"The way you tried defending the Genetic fallacy was so pathetically childish im not going to even respond to it."
I should ask, actually, do you even know what the genetic fallacy is? Or did my response just go over your head?
Birdieupon 3 months ago
@Birdieupon
"Sorry, you said the AFA fallacy was "bullshit", so by your rules I'm allowed to use it and say God exists!"
You can use it but its useless when there is such a thing as evidence.
"I'm calling your bluff: you're incapable of responding to it."
Using the fallacy in the wrong way to attempt to trick me is stupid and childish. HAHA, as if you could go over my head.
No those actual truths are scientific facts discovered by people completely unaffiliated with philosophy.
JaydeeOldBoy 3 months ago
@JaydeeOldBoy
"Those same groundbreaking serious scientists dont follow or study any philosophical principals"
Of course they do. The philosophy of scientific empiricism assumes that all things have a material explanation to it and repeated observation & experimentation will lead us closer to the truth. This is called the scientific method & scientists use and study this philosophy in order to gain more knowledge about the material universe. Thanks for showing us u know nothing.
Sniper2008009 2 months ago
@Sniper2008009
The scientific method is the creation of science itself, through rigorous trial and error and taking the next logical steps in experimentation. We don’t call scientists “Natural Philosophers” anymore because it’s now a different discipline devoid of philosophy which doesn’t deal with the relatively strong certainties science does.
JaydeeOldBoy 2 months ago
Just listen to this guy, the way he talks, ... just kind of going through the motions.
He just seems to lack a sincerity, or something ( can't seem to find the right words ) but
that I get when listening to the likes of Harris or Dawkins.
PiskieBenWa 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Craig isn't being consistent with fine tuning, first he says the universe had to be fine tuned a specific way to allow for life meaning the universe can only come about a specific way limiting god in his creating powers and bounding him to laws. Then he proceeds to say god can do anything and make anything possible but this is not true. So this fine tuning argument is a good argument against god's existence.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
everyone looks bored and uninspired
Thizzmotion 3 months ago
Our will. What we want is partially set by genes but can be altered through appelation and by experience. Our will is natural and not made up as in pretended. The same would go for any beings will. It's not made up unless we use cognition to monkey someone else by idolisation, through appelation. Capricious would be someone who mostly acts on whim and don't really use free will/cognition abillety. Our thoughts go on impulsively. It just is a developed operation in this part of the universe.
SaerdnaOoOoo 3 months ago
That would be our free will controlling our natural will. But it would not be made up in every sense of the meaning of the word made up. It would not be an illusion either. Only perhaps our understanding of our will. Our abstracted model of it can be incorrect so to say. But I don't see how any beings will can be objective or subjectively supperior to all else by it self or how the being could reach that conclusion.
SaerdnaOoOoo 3 months ago
Their position is that God just is - timeless. Rather than the concrete observable universe. So to say that time is an illusion.
SaerdnaOoOoo 3 months ago
if only Craig would follow his own reasoning about scientists making pronouncements outside of their field of specialization ans stop making pronouncements outside his own filed and champion himself as some sort of an expert on Big Bang Cosmology! this fucking hypocrite is so unprincipled, he makes physically sick
get off the stage, you disgraced hack
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgeOfReasonXXI "get off the stage, you disgraced hack!"
"fucking hypocrite"
Very reasonable comment "AgeOfReasonXXI"
It seems you're the "fucking hypocrite" here.
A reasonable comment would consist of an actual argument, points, rebuttles, etc... instead of shrieking out insults and accusations.
Razz1991Tazz 3 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Thank you for your rational comment and the clarity you bring to the discourse, AgeOfReason. What a reasonable person you are. Such pure, unadulterated Reason, it's amazing!
Jesrael1986M 3 months ago
@Jesrael1986M you don't reason with a hack like Craig, you expose him. Craig openly admitted that even if ALL evidence were to turn against his faith he'd still be a Christian, bc of the Holy Spirit in his heart! So he holds the position of any fundy, i.e. there's nothing you can say to me that would change my mind.
if there's anything worse than a fundy, that's one with intellectual pretenses. so yes, Craig IS a fucking disgrace
see R. Price's article "By this time he Stinketh"
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI great ad hominem
godhasgiventruly 3 months ago
@godhasgiventruly you don't know what an ad hominem is , do you? where in my comments do I claim that becasue Craig is a shameless fundy and a hack, his arguments fail?
rather, he loses the right to be taken seriously by any honest scholar and only has the right to be exposed.
if you read the remarks of many those who had debated him, such as L. Krauss, R. Price, B. Ehrman, S. Harris, C. Washington, etc, you'll see they more or less agree on what Craig is
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
"here in my comments do I claim that becasue Craig is a shameless fundy and a hack, his arguments fail?"
"rather, he loses the right to be taken seriously by any honest scholar and only has the right to be exposed."
So you're basically saying that because he's a fundie and a hack, his arguments shouldn't be taken seriously, which what you're really trying to say is that his arguments are automatically debunked. Nice ad hominem. Congrats for the self pwnage
Sniper2008009 2 months ago
Get a life loser. Robert Price is the real hack. Even Bart Ehrman says that no real scholar doubts the existence of Christ as a historical figure.
AegeanKing 3 months ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI You're a pathetic troll! You are so obsessed with your own disbelief that you actually take time out of your day to troll videos on a subject that you dont even believe in . WLC has never said he is an expert in big bang cosmology. If you would actually listen to the lecture you will see that he takes his science from the most MODERN and up to date science available. Do you know something that usurps the BVG theorem? Your vile comments make me physically sick!
AegeanKing 3 months ago
@AegeanKing go take your meds, faith-head. Craig is the worst kind of a hack, one who has no clue what intellectual honesty is, and is so fanatical in his Iron Age faith, that admits nothing could change his mind even though he champions himself as a intellectual! now THAT can make someone physically sick, and that's why I commented
modern cosmology points to God? Really?? How is it then almost all cosmologists are atheists? apparently you should get a life, you deluded fuck-head
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
Comment removed
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AegeanKing and yes, a trolling, moronic faith-head like you calling someone else pathetic and a troll is, well.. pathetic
and did I ever dispute that the deluded rabbi you call a "savior" existed?
or is it the WLCs type of "logic": he was executed, his tomb was found empty, his disciples claimed they've had visions of him (all of which I grant) -> therefore he's Lord and can save us (from himself) if we repent!
should I point out who's pathetic again?
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
@AegeanKing "Your vile comments make me physically sick!"
I'm pretty sure that can't compare to the feeling of nausea I get upon seeing a man who's made a career out of arguing for god and maintains his faith is "reasonable", and even urges his followers to question the honesty of those who refuse to buy into his arguments by asking "well if I refute your objections would you become a Christian", while at the same time (the very same chapter of his book) he makes it perfectly clear
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
@AegeanKing ..that if the same question is posed to him and his arguments are defeated, Craig's answer would be "NO"(!) and he'd dismiss your arguments bc the Holy Spirit trumps ALL arguments and evidence and assures him he's right!
Putting aside the fact that such a stance reveals Craig's true fundamentalist colors (I mean, this guy apparently admitted that even if he's taken back with a time machine to Jesus' tomb and sees no resurrection occurs, he'd assume..
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
@AegeanKing ..some sort of trick was played on him, and remain a Christian!) and amounts to nothing less than an intellectual suicide, the sheer hypocrisy and shameless projection of his own insincerity onto his opponents really borders on pathology
so Price is right: "Craig's apologetics has adopted insincerity as a structural principle". with the possible exception of his GENOCIDE apologetics, that is
Dawkins' words about that "deplorable apologist for genocide" come to mind here
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 months ago
This was really good : )
SPR4GOD 3 months ago
I love how Mr Craig sneaks the Gospel in twice
garretthes 3 months ago
the interesting thing is I think Hawking discovered that the universe was created from nothing aka no material cause, that christians agree on... but seeing that he goes further to make nothing the cause of the universe, which christians disagree because we believe in a efficient cause aka God I think christians could use his work but have a different conclusion.
charlesgomesbr 3 months ago
Nicely recorded. Thanks for uploading.
Jacob011 3 months ago
A very good performance!
TheDutchPhilosopher 3 months ago
46:37 - If not Hawking, maybe Mlodinov. It'd be great to see him debate William Lane Craig.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
this is a great video it is a shame that atheists the likes of stephen and dawkins when given chance to respond to their weak agrument they hide their head in the sand and wish nobody has noticed their deshonest intelectual reasons why they dont want to debate.
borntwise 3 months ago
Thanx for uploading :)
lukehase 3 months ago
1:16:49 the questioner is quoting Christopher Hitchens.... verbatim!
Birdieupon 3 months ago
@Birdieupon Holy shit! If ever a video should be made on the lack of thinking on part of YT atheists(I presume hes got an account for it) this bit should be in it ;)
Daxcheese 3 months ago
@Birdieupon LOL! Plagiaristic, unoriginal twerp!
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@Birdieupon BTW, is that you, birdie, in the front row? :)
Jacob011 3 months ago